PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Philosophy· 2026Q1

The Thinking Animal Argument is Not a Sound Argument for Animalism

Benjamin L. Curtis, Harold W Noonan

Short summary

The thinking animal argument, though sound, does not establish Animalism (human persons are biological animals with purely biological persistence conditions).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • The thinking animal argument is accepted as sound.
  • The argument's soundness is compatible with the hybrid view of personal persistence.
  • The hybrid view of personal persistence is inconsistent with Animalism.
  • Therefore, the thinking animal argument does not establish Animalism.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Abstract In this paper we argue that the thinking animal argument does not establish Animalism, i.e ., the view that human persons are biological animals with purely biological persistence conditions. While we accept that the argument is sound, we show that its soundness is consistent with the hybrid view of personal persistence, a view that is inconsistent with Animalism.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Philosophy, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysIn the app
Ask the paperIn the app

The rest is in the Pofolia app

Takeaways and questions to the paper; new summaries every day for your field. Free.

Sign in on the web to open

Field: Philosophy

PhilosophyArts and Humanities